tv [untitled] June 17, 2012 1:00am-1:29am PDT
is regardless of that corrected permit, work continued to some extent that it had begun. thus creating an additional violation and exceeded the corrected permit. specifically, the trimming back here did not take place and there was an image the permit holder had that might shed some light on that. we sure your observation. we are intrigued by the nature of this platform. i have never seen an investment on this scale for a structure that is accessible and largely unusable. that is a question. regardless of that question, the planning department's goal is to make sure the applicable koets are followed and that the property is restored to its legal condition. to that end, what we might tentatively and respectfully
subjects -- suggested to grant the appeal, uphold the permit, but adopt conditions which would do two things. firstly, to require the reduction or perhaps formalize the reduction of that rear deck or platform so it would extend no more than 2 feet, 6 inches from the rear building wall. that is the previously as billed condition. the second condition we might suggest would be to require that the repairs to the deck be entirely in kind. specifically, the deck feature and open railing rather than any firewall or screening and the reason for this is under the planning code, the only type of vertical structure that can be affixed to this has to be open to the maximum us -- extent allowed under the building code and cannot be a fire wall here. leslee and with respect to the issue raised by the appellant in this matter, we believe it is
reasonable to assume that once the deck is scaled back to the as built conditions, the privacy concerns would be addressed because the property would have reverted to its previous authorized dimensions. i am happy to answer any questions. >> where is the rear edge of the deck in relationship to planning code allowed with respect to the proper realign? >> the plan submitted and approved do not have what we would consider to be an adequate site plan but it is sufficient to knew that the entire deck structure is within the required rear yard. the entire structure is nonconforming which leads to that can straight were the only railing that can be put on is open.
>> when you say refer back to the prior condition, we saw a railing. >> we did. it was an open reeling. i do not have that picture. >> your recommendation would be an open drilling -- railing. if the permit holder -- if you choose to allow one it would be open to plan -- comply with the planning code. >> in the picture that we were shown, it appeared to me they were open. were they not open on both the proposed or the existing and a previously existing? i did not see any additional wahl. >> that is correct. there was an image in the appellant brief that depicted some solid wall. whether it was a fire wall or not i am not sure. i believe the plans -- it was
the imagery that suggested a solid structure on one end of that? structure. >> in my exhibit c, there was a fire wall. the fire was requested by the planning commission because this bill could has always gone to that party lines once we did the repair work, they asked a fire will be put there. i am not partial to a fire wall. the only reason the firewall is on the west side which is the non-member site is for symmetry. if a fire wall were to be required on the east side neighboring mr. kwok's.
the inner side of that wall -- was their interest to put the wall all the way around between the other rails? >> no. >> your intent is to build a deck that is 2 feet 6 inches wide? >> whatever is allowed by planning. it has been allowed if it is a 3 ft. balcony. that is what is in the appellate's last exhibit. you can see the description. extending 3 feet out from the rear wall. a balcony with firewall in exhibit o of the appellant's brief. not 2 feet 6 inches but 3 feet. >> may i hear -- why are we
hearing the discrepancies hear? >> my sense that the appellant -- the permit holder may be confusing the building department with the planning department. which is an understanding -- understandable confusion, i might add. if i can perhaps throw something out there. the photo on the overhead right now -- is not clear to me if this is the condition of the debt today. it was the deck in the past or the condition in the as bill. i do not believe it was the latter. i'm sort of confused now. i leave it at that. >> this is how it looks right now. >> is that consistent with the as bill? >> that is why the inspector when the inspector came out, he found it was --
to be the as built. it was removed as part of the dry rot work? >> this is not the as bill. this is the picture of the post- removal of the railing. >> i will fly back from this to the image we see today. the depth of this structure appears different than the depth of this structure. it would appear to us from these images that they trimming back has not occurred.
>> i would like to get a rebuttal. >> for the dry rot repair? >> what is your question? >> he has a question. >> is it the same depth? >> there was an additional 6 inches that was granted in order to protect from oyster -- moisture. it is 6 inches from the bottom of the portion of the beam. i do not believe it is extended beyond the top portion of the original choice -- joists. that is why the engineering and planning and permit came up with the distance. >> thank you.
>> i will give you some history. the department received a complaint that they were building a deck without a permit. and we out and cited for building without a permit. building a deck at the rear of the building, it is not a deck and even to call it a balcony could be a stretch. something decorative may have been close. we issued a notice of violation, upper right got obtained -- a permit got obtained. i saw the plans and there were not of great quality. i worked very hard to understand
what was existing and what was proposed. i cannot figure that out from these photographs that were submitted as part of the brave. i cannot tell if there was an existing railing from the photographs. people have stated there was but i cannot tell if these are existing or proposed conditions. i think that is where we're at here. with regard to the far wall, if you are rebuilding something in kind and it did not require a firewall, the building department will usually allow you not to have to put a fire wall in there because it existed previously without it. your rebuilding and putting it back. you're not making any bigger. if you go out and make it bigger, all bets are off. it has to be brought up to the code. if the structure was built to code, it would require a firewall or some kind of
noncombustible construction at that point were we have a fire wall now. i am available for any questions. >> would help make this less confusing? -- what would help make this less confusing? >> more better evidence of existing conditions. the 6 inches we're talking about. i would need to see detail. the clear detail. more accurate information on existing and proposed. the link and the width of the balcony, exterior elevations showing existing and proposed because i cannot tell if there is anything outside of that. regarding safety concerns about falling out a window, that good for -- could go for any window. i am not sure why a guard rail would help. you should not be out on this balcony. i would call it of -- i will call it a balcony.
people should not be out on the balcony. it is not accessible. i see it as cantilevered as well which is structurally ok. it has to go twice as much back into the building as it goes outside. it has to go back in six. i do not think anyone should be out on the structure. the information is very -- i cannot -- it is hard to figure what is going on. if i had photographs from before it would be great. of the before condition. i know the gentleman stated they were. it is hard to tell from the photos, to be honest with you. this photograph in exhibit c. i can tell if it is an existing or proposed. as of today. maybe a site visit could help. >> is there anything from
planning that could assist you in clearing or determining the confusion? >> additional information documenting original existing conditions would be helpful. that said, from a planning perspective, we would preliminarily be satisfied that the platform you can see was indicated at a depth of 2 feet 6 inches, that was the existing epaired. we look at a very different set of issues.
>> is there any member of the public would like to speak? seeing none, we will take rebuttal. three minutes. >> he said we are a complainer. we are not. we because he said he want a tree there, the people canno0t see through his window. we also -- obviously, people stand on that balcony can see into our rooms. we drive around our neighborhood.
people build the balcony usually 3 feet away from the wall and this is another one. they keep space with each other, each building. privacy can be maintained. and we want to emphasize this is what it looks like an obviously, -- and obviously, this whole project was billed -- built to have people to go out and entertain people. thanks too tho the birth of his daughter, we do not have to worry about loud music during
the week day for our school kids. >> this -- this thing he calls a felony is wet appears on the exhibit. it is not a balcony. it is a piece of board for decoration purpose with your -- which you see in many homes in san francisco. it is just for decoration purposes. it is not meant to be like a barbecue -- like a balcony where you can have a balcony or whatever you want to do. hang out there all night, partying. it is for planks. even if you put a plant on it, it could fall over and hit
someone. it is at most a couple of feet wide. how can it be a balcony? it cannot be a balcony. it has been there for so many years. i did not know it even exists. that-i could not see it on the edge of our home. you could hardly see it because it is so small. thank you. >> did you not see the guard rails on there before? >> no. >> when -- there were no guard rails.? >> do you mean the board -- >> there is no rail. >> we heard testimony that barred real's existed. >> it is a piece of board on top. two piece of board like a two by six or whatever you call that.
>> why don't you put up exhibit a? >> this is what was completed before. >> there is a board -- a horizontal board on top. it does exist before? >> not exactly like that. >> no. >> the picture there is partly built already. before the permit was granted. >> thank you. i do not have any further questions.
>> you have three minutes. >> i really just want to be done with the whole thing. is taking a long time. i would like to repair it and be done with it. however that needs to be done from everybody is perspective, i would like to spend the least amount of money i can and just repair it. however it is appropriate or suitable. if nothing else, i have to add, whenever you're bored's feeling is as to which should be done. thank you. >> the simplest thing to do is
leaving the beams projecting outward. if you put the rail as we suggested earlier as a potential alternative, if they are recessed in 3 feet or 3 feet 6, you're not required to put a fire wall. >> i would prefer not to have a rail than to cut back -- there are beams that, all the beams that support the structure have come out from the original structure all the way to the edge and i would prefer to remove all railings and such than to cut back inward. that would be consistent with
existing. however the agreement is on existing, but i do not want to cut the balcony back. even if you look at this structure here, which i do not think anybody is debating as the structure that had been stripped of the dry rot. i do not want to cut back from the ends but if you're board feels i should strip everything down, get rid of railings, firewalls, but i do not want to cut it back architecturally inward from what has never been there. >> understood. president hwang: anything more from the departments? mr. duffy?
>> just something quick. if the balcony did extend to the property lines and if the new rail was set back in where you could keep the board's running past the guard rail, that might be an option but i do not know if that is what you were getting at when you said that. it wanted the balcony cut back as well. if we could -- we could set in three foot six and that would not be seen by the neighbors said he could keep the balcony to the property line with the grill said in a 3 ft. 6. >> there are a number of options. if he wants the rail to go around the entire -- let's call a balcony at this point. that is ok. if he then has a vertical and
horizontal line he wants respect to the building elevation, that is fine. if he wants to avoid putting in the firewalls, that he can in said in -- and sent -- inset in the rail. it seems like that would take care of both issues between the neighbors and them. and reduce how much it would cost. i'm not sure takes care of the argument the neighbors may have. i do not think we can deal with that. >> ok. just thought i would mention. >> anything further? >> thank you. i want to reiterate that the planning department's primary
concern would be restoring a property to the compliance of the planning code and regardless of the location of the railing, as long as they're open, that means reducing the death of the deck to more -- no more than 2 feet 6 inches from the rear building wall. just want to reiterate that. >> are you saying that to the edge of the beams? >> no. 2 feet 6 inches from the rear building wall. presumably from the -- the extent of the existing previously billed beams would be no more than 2 feet 6 inches. that is what was reflected on the plans that were approved. >> it could be off a little bit. if the issue is the beams are existing as built conditions, the edge of the beams would be the limit that you are talking about. >> the edge of the existing beams, should the department
able to able to detect from the recently added. >> in response to that. i just don't want to cut it in. whatever the permit our planning department needs to do to come out to see what is existing and keep it there is fine with me. >> my suggestion was not to cut -- >> you were sauyi -- saying adding a railing inside. >> the matter is submitted.
>> there's no real good solution but i would propose the following. i would take into consideration the planning department's two conditions. i would uphold the permit for the permit. with those two conditions and with a third i would add on the property line a six-foot high firewall or lattice as a visual deterrent. >> that sounds like where i would be going. >> what are the planning conditions?
>> what is the -- one is the dimension of the balcony is equivalent to the as built conditions which would be the best of the existing beams. >> they are no longer existing. >> they still are. >> i think they were ripped off based on the picture i saw but i could be wrong. are those the beams that were underneath? i thought those were the dry rot issues. >> no. the beams underneath the balcony were reinforcement beams that were added on either side and then engineering was done to make it structurally sound for planning commission. the original beams were in the inside.
que>> the suggestions were to reduce the death -- depth and require that the repairs be in kind and that included an open railing and no firewall. >> with a screening on one side. >> the main portion would be open to the maximum extent possible as per planning code but on the property line, i would condition it with a six- foot either lattice or firewall. >> one last point. mr. duffy asked me